Me and Twitter - (we've been together for a year now) get our fun
from chance conversations which spill over across other networks from
chat to second life. They are often rich and exciting.

Twitter is dead complex. DEFINITELY a Gemini! It's exhausting.
Nowhere else is the diverse mix of the known and unknown, personal and
inane...

Bit busy mind - we found - me and Twitter that is. Then Twitter started to use me....I got a bit compulsive - bit like Alan Levine @cogdog - pressure to 'keep up'

Me and Twitter started to search for meaning, we found Charlie Schick useful in trying to understand our shallow yet enriching relationship...

Internet, wave 1 - mass broadcasting and publications
Internet, wave 2 - it's about the youniverse, many to many
Internet, wave 3 - it's about me and mine, few to few, in relevant
and closely tied connections, making my First Life vibrant via my
Second Life tools.

So where are me and Twitter today... Well, I think we're happily blending Charlie's wave 2 and 3. We just can't o past some of the 'many stuff'.

One other thing that I look for now in social apps is that it makes myfirst life, my life in the real world, richer, and that the folks inthat network make my life richer.

So do the chance meetings make us richer.. to a degree, yes, but only by accepting that our relationship is ..senseless, purposeless, and by chance. I have stopped expecting Twitter to 'improve' my life. me and Twitter now pick and choose, and often ignore each other. But when we spark - wow it's seductive.

We are cutting edge - modern and traditional simultaneously. We don't want to limit our relationship only to me and mine. But nor do I want to obsess about Twitter's other relationships.... Twitter and me, we want to listen to the world, but we are also exclusive - we want to revel in our individual relationship..

Knowledge has traditionally has been collaborative – take for example folk songs - the Iliad, the Bible.

We do not really know who wrote the Iliad, or where the stories originally came from – we know Homer interpreted and re-presented this information. Does this take away its value as a cultural icon?

Ownership of knowledge and knowledge as commodity has only been around since the Industrial Revolution. Was there no culture or economy before this time?

to quote Ken Robinson - "our education is predicated on academic achievement..... and is a ... "protracted form of university entrance" This is not culture, this is elite control of information.

If information as commodity has produced such a rich culture, why:

have academic qualifications been so devalued - I now need an
post-graduate qualification where an undergraduate qualification
sufficed...

do so few people attend 'cultural events'

s the Internet a hotbed of creativity and collaboration

Propoganda has always been around and advertising has always contained lies – or is Keen seriously suggesting that we believe that drinking coca cola will make us popular, thin, hip and cool with lots of friends, or that John Howard will keep interest rates historically low?

Ask any history professor – truth is not a word we can apply to individual accounts. The concept of information as 'fact' is one peddled by academia, but one to which academia does not subscribe. How is information available through blogs et al, any different from diaries scribbled in war trenches? They are all an individual's account of the 'truth'.

So how has Web 2.0 changed things?Well, it hasn't really - opinion is still subjective - the main changes have been in the ownership of information. So why is this so alarming and life-threatening to our culture and economy?

I’d say it is not a threat – it's an opportunity to: - develop new ways of using information. Creative Commons has made a start.- determine the skills needed to make sense and use of the volume of information:

Let's Debate, Evaluate and Interpret

Why aren't academics excited?This is an opportunity to get off the ‘grants application’ treadmill and start teaching the skills necessary to research effectively.

What is there to gain?

Increasing value on research and interpretation skills as a commodity rather than the production of information itself.

If the production of information is no longer a commodity in itself then plagiarism loses its value.

If the ability to pull meaning from diverse sources is a valued skill then we no longer have to spend countless hours dealing with copyright…. Let’s pay those who can effectively and powerfully debate, compare and re-present

I would argue to Andrew Keen that far from Web 2.0 killing culture and assaulting our economy it is providing us with the opportunity to use information in new ways, to raise our ability to use information wisely.

Is this a bad thing? Will it lead to a poorer culture?

It is only bad if we continue to ignore the need for strong creative critical ability.